A Quote by Dionysius Lardner

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. — © Dionysius Lardner
Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.
High-speed rail would revolutionise interstate travel and would also be an economic game-changer for dozens of regional communities along its path.
There has to be essentially a completely new regulatory framework for Hyperloop because it is not high-speed rail. It's not rail.
Efficiency, connectivity and productivity are all economic buzzwords that people have said high-speed rail will deliver. But at the heart of it what high-speed rail will deliver is growth and jobs.
Today, we know that time travel need not be confined to myths, science fiction, Hollywood movies, or even speculation by theoretical physicists. Time travel is possible. For example, an object traveling at high speeds ages more slowly than a stationary object. This means that if you were to travel into outer space and return, moving close to light speed, you could travel thousands of years into the Earth's future.
Many people are unable to see friends and family as often as they'd like due to the cost of rail travel.
The "Green" community, the enviro people, are preoccupied with running all the cars differently. Our techno-grandiosity has us gibbering about high-speed rail - which we don't have the capital for anymore - but nobody is interested in repairing the existing rail system, which would be far less costly and hugely beneficial for us. In short, we are acting cluelessly. And life is tragic. The clueless usually suffer.
I do not see how we can rationally oppose high speed rail because of the environmental and other costs without considering the social and human consequences of the radical elimination of transportation that this entails.
China has gotten high-speed rail right, where the United States has not.
International examples prove that high-speed rail pays for itself.
If we could do high-speed rail in California just half a notch above what they've done on the Shanghai line in China, and if we had a straight path from L.A. to San Francisco, as well as the milk run, at least that would be progress.
Railroad carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of fifteen miles per hour by engines which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to the crops, scaring the livestock, and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such break-neck speed.
If we do high-speed rail, the governor has to be intelligent and invest the dollars at the 'bookends' - San Francisco and Los Angeles.
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger champion of high-speed rail than me when the bond went to voters. I believed in it.
Mr. Xi is all-in on robotics, aerospace, high-speed rail, new-energy vehicles and advanced medical products.
We seem to be committing ourselves to an eye wateringly expensive railroad for the few. High speed rail plan is madness.
Our European neighbours in France have invested in their infrastructure early and are now reaping the rewards later. This is because wherever high-speed rail has been built between the major cities and economic centres of a country - as in HS2 - it has exceeded demand forecasts.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!